This latest version differs from V1.12 (which never went live) in that V1.13 restores the United Kingdom bonus to 3 and removes the Naples-Bosnia link (which was proposed and accepted in this thread, but never made it onto a graphical version).

So, if this version goes live, it differs from the current live version (V1.11) in that the bonuses for Sweden, Naples, and Denmark have all been reduced from 2 to 1, and the abbreviation used in the XML for Saxony has been corrected from Sw to Sx.

Kabanellas, you will likely want to update the first post with the following:

So, if this version goes live, it differs from the current live version (V1.11) in that the bonuses for Sweden, Naples, and Denmark have all been reduced from 2 to 1, and the abbreviation used in the XML for Saxony has been corrected from Sw to Sx. --> Someone said this above. Sorry, couldn't get the "quote" button to work well.

Just wanted to throw my two-cents in here. I GREATLY dislike the changes. I can't figure out why anyone would attempt an early strategy for these regions now that they have been reduced. It is often difficult enough to take and hold them over the first 4-10 rounds, but now I think gameplay will show them even more difficult to hold to the point that players trying to do so will ultimately fail to win the game, especially in "no spoils."

I hope the designers, who have done an absolutely outstanding job with this map in EVERY respect, will go back to the +2 for each of these regions as bonuses.

I agree with Vic. This is BY FAR my favorite map, I usually have 3 or 4 games going on it at a time. That being said, these new changes will make the game play less balanced in 8 player games. Naples was a tough gig already, and Sweden/Norway was a risky but sometimes successful early play before, but now I'm convinced that these are no longer viable early objectives. One of the most attractive aspects of this map was the almost countless paths to victory, but I think that these changes will serve to funnel more players' attention towards fewer legitimate starting strategies resulting in less competitive long-term games.

Also, I have noticed that the +1 bonus for Prussia w/Warsaw was down in the last game I played.

Again, like Vic, I really love this map and have a lot of experience on it, and I think these changes will have a negative affect on game-play.

I cannot disagree with you guys more. Many times in a 1v1 game someone will drop in either Sicily or Rome, take the Italy bonus and it'll be game over. And Sweden and Norway are well protected, so they shouldn't have been +2s to begin with.

Patriot1985 wrote:Also, I have noticed that the +1 bonus for Prussia w/Warsaw was down in the last game I played.

I think this is the second time this has been mentioned. The bonus for holding all of Poland overrides the Warsaw w/ Prussia bonus and the Krakow w/ Austrian Empire bonus. In general, the additive bonuses are overridden by holding a primary bonus which includes them: e.g., if you hold the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, you do not get the extra for holding Bessarabia with the Ottoman Empire. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to convey this on the map. During gameplay development discussions, the consensus seemed to be that this sort of thing was not unusual.

VicFontaine wrote:That map is a POOR one to play 1-on-1. Why would you do that? Changing a game to making it pliable for a 1-on-1 game doesn't make much sense to me.

I strongly disagree. I've played 200 1v1 games on this map. I probably wouldn't have made it to Brigadier without it. It's a very interesting map to play 1v1. There are very few maps like this that can sustain large attacks and counterattacks with high bonuses and yet stay interesting and not be decided right away.

Just want to quickly state I disagree with VicFontaine's point of view, after more than 30 games on the map, from 1v1's to doubles to 8player standard I support the change of the Scandinavian countries from 2 to 1, they were overpowered, especially when combined for a bonus of 4 (And hey I'm Swedish, lol, and yet still support the weakening of my motherland )

Naples I don't mind either way, I did oppose the suggested sea-route strongly though as I feel Italy (not the italy region of the map but the greater italy geographic area so to speak) is a weak "base of operations" in large standard games as it is, and there was no need to weaken it further.

VicFontaine wrote:That map is a POOR one to play 1-on-1. Why would you do that? Changing a game to making it pliable for a 1-on-1 game doesn't make much sense to me.

I strongly disagree. I've played 200 1v1 games on this map. I probably wouldn't have made it to Brigadier without it. It's a very interesting map to play 1v1. There are very few maps like this that can sustain large attacks and counterattacks with high bonuses and yet stay interesting and not be decided right away.

I'll pipe up to agree it's one of the better 1 v 1 maps that has so many regions (compared to say WW2 Europe or World 2.1 it's much fairer), but I can warn you not to play joriki as he it excellent on it.

Army of GOD wrote:I cannot disagree with you guys more. Many times in a 1v1 game someone will drop in either Sicily or Rome, take the Italy bonus and it'll be game over. And Sweden and Norway are well protected, so they shouldn't have been +2s to begin with.

I'm gonna toss my 80% in.

Norway and Sweden should be +1 bonuses.

The Kingdom of Naples should be a 1 also OR had an another entry path to it. We shall see how the udates work.

This post was made by jefjef who should be on your ignore list.

drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".

England is well balanced at 3. First, it does not have easy access to any land battles at all, and breaking through sea battles could easily lead to it being conquered if done too early in the game. So the +3 is vital to ensure its development in the middle game. Second, it reflects the historical reality of a slow English build-up at the stgart of the Napoleonic era, to its achieving a strong position towards its end. Here, too, the +3 is essential. Finally, a +2 would put it on the same level with the Ottoman empire and less than hald of France or Russia, which again makes no sense game play wise or historically. I strongly oppose any change in England's bonus for all these reasons.

France is tough to hold, just as Russia is, because they should be tough to hold given their bonuses and easy access to 5 land battles in and around their territories. So, again, I strongly oppose removing any territory from France or making any new impssable borders.

After the latest changes, I think the game is perfectly balanced and no other changes should be made - save minor ones not pertaining to game play, if necessary.

Allons enfants de la patrie --Click here to support this mapLe jour de gloire est arrivé!if you love the Napoleon Era

Raskholnikov wrote:England is well balanced at 3. First, it does not have easy access to any land battles at all, and breaking through sea battles could easily lead to it being conquered if done too early in the game. So the +3 is vital to ensure its development in the middle game. Second, it reflects the historical reality of a slow English build-up at the stgart of the Napoleonic era, to its achieving a strong position towards its end. Here, too, the +3 is essential. Finally, a +2 would put it on the same level with the Ottoman empire and less than hald of France or Russia, which again makes no sense game play wise or historically. I strongly oppose any change in England's bonus for all these reasons.

France is tough to hold, just as Russia is, because they should be tough to hold given their bonuses and easy access to 5 land battles in and around their territories. So, again, I strongly oppose removing any territory from France or making any new impssable borders.

After the latest changes, I think the game is perfectly balanced and no other changes should be made - save minor ones not pertaining to game play, if necessary.

I agree wholeheartedly. Especially about UK. UK is the counterbalance to the Portugal/spain > France expansion, the back door if you will. Weakening UK would partially negate it's viability as a "home base" in the build games, but also, put further focus on "spain" as the ideal starting position.

In the dubs-esc games I play I see no problem with the map as it is. The nerfing of the scandinavian countires was a good call, and after that the map is in balance. I've never ever had any issue with the Naples area which was the other area of discussion. (though granted I play the map mostly sunny, and I can see potential advantages in the area for fog games)

For the Build games (standard, flatrate/No spoils 6-8 player) time is needed to play and assess. These games take time, hundreds of rounds, and real life Months. With this game type in mind, potential tweaks might need to be made down the line, but Kabanellas is a humble and friendly guy, and I'm certain he'll be willing to listen to such arguments if the time comes.

For now, all issues with the map seem to have been addressed, and any changes asked now seem more to be about personal preference than objective issues with the map... thus; Realease this baby from BETA!!

Thank you. I agree with your comments and have nothing against potential tweaks down the line if necessary. I also think it's time to release this map from Beta, so if the Foundry guys could make this thread sticky for any last -minute comments before release, that would be super. Thanks to all who contributed to this map over the past 15 months - and of course, first and foremost to Kab, who is simply amazing as an artist and amazingly patient, as well as to ender who coded the map and implemented all necessary changes and adjustments.

Vive l'Empereur!

Allons enfants de la patrie --Click here to support this mapLe jour de gloire est arrivé!if you love the Napoleon Era